16 October 2017

I read some reactions to a recent speech by Steven K. Bannon from people identifying as Alt Right. One response, I thought, was overly laudatory, the other overly dismissive. Here I give very briefly my view of Bannon's relationship to nationalism and to the race.

On the whole, Steve Bannon is a conservative Catholic -- conservative in the old sense of preserving traditions. His public statements generally reflect that. He has in the past stated his rejection of racism, but also his opposition to economic globalism and support for a nationalism based not on race but on social ties and culture. This seems to be in accord with the Catholic worldview. Based on this understanding of Bannon, I would not expect him to advocate anything more radical than civic nationalism.
Civic nationalism is not really enough to prevent racial decline, but it is a good start. I might point out that Mussolini's Italy was a civic nationalist state. Once the principle is established, that the state exists to preserve the people in it and to guard their interests against predatory minorities and against predatory foreigners, further refinements can be made later.
What I find especially important is Bannon's stated view that the economy exists to serve the nation. This is a direct repudiation of what passes for conservatism today. That "conservatism," which would not have been regarded as conservative a century ago, subordinates all other considerations to profit. Under that ideology, race is one of many values sacrificed on the altar of Mammon. The rejection of that ideology is a prerequisite for our race's survival. In that regard, Bannon is in practice, regardless of his declared disregard for race as a value, a more radical advocate for our race than some who carried torches in Charlottesville, who still espouse that destructive ideology.
What I find curious is Bannon's repeated misuse of the word corporatist. He uses the word corporatist as a smear-word, the way Marxists use it, apparently as a synonym for plutocrat, and of course as a way to avoid saying Jew.
As a conservative Catholic, Bannon ought to know the proper meaning of corporatism, because it was advocated by Pope Leo XIII. Corporatism is a system that is supposed to prevent any particular set of interests from dominating a national economy and serving themselves to the detriment of the nation as a whole. This is the corporatism that was later adopted by Mussolini's Italy, and would eventually have been implemented in National-Socialist Germany. It is an expression of economic populism. There is even a fine article on Wikipedia that explains this, if it hasn't yet been vandalized by editors.
Marxists have inverted the meanings of words like corporatism that represent alternatives to Leninism in order, I believe, to remove those concepts from public discourse. As a conservative Catholic, Bannon should know better.
During the election last year I supported Trump. To those who pointed out Trump's shortcomings, especially his Jewish connections, my response was that unfortunately Hitler was not on the ballot. Nor is it reasonable to expect somebody like Hitler to be on the ballot in a country as badly entrenched in delusion as the United States. The USA needs radical change, and this does not happen overnight. There are bound to be intermediate stages. Before the National-Socialists became dominant in the German Reichstag and Hitler was appointed chancellor, Europe was shocked by the election in 1925 of the conservative president Paul von Hindenburg. Hindenburg was not Hitler, but he made Hitler possible. Without losing sight of our ideal, this is how we have to view political change, as an incremental process.Steve Bannon seems to be less educated in nationalism than he should be; he doesn't even know as much as a conservative Catholic should know. It appears that his outlook is not altogether free of the prevalent "conservative" attitudes and other propaganda of the past few decades -- but he does nonetheless represent a move in the right direction.

01 October 2017

On 25 September 2017 I was interviewed by Ted Midward. It was a live show, wherein I did not know what I was going to be asked. Topics included the Alt Right (which I was a little hesitant to discuss), Holocaust Revisionism, and Hitler's alleged mistakes.You can hear the show here.

The Murder of George Lincoln Rockwell

Hadding Scott

Shortly before noon on Friday, 25 August 1967, George Lincoln Rockwell left his home, and headquarters of his National-Socialist White People's Party, at 6150 Wilson Boulevard1in Arlington, Virginia, to do his laundry at theEcon-o-washlaundromat in the Dominion Hills Centre at 6013 to 6035 Wilson Boulevard. The location was described by the Associated Press as "across the busy highway from the old frame house that served as Rockwell's home -- and the barracks of his 'troopers'" (AP, 26 August 1967).

At the laundromat a witness, 60-year-old Ruby Pierce, said that Rockwell, "a tall, charming man," came in and talked about which washing machine to use. "He put his clothes in the washer and put his detergent in, and then he said, 'I forgot something,' or maybe he said, 'I forgot my bleach.'"

Rockwell exited the laundromat, got into his 1958 Chevrolet, and began to back out. Two loud shots pierced the windshield of Rockwell's car, one of them striking him in the chest. Rockwell made a brief and futile attempt to seek cover. His backward-moving car struck another car and stalled. Rockwell either lurched out or fell out of the passenger-side door, landing face-up on the pavement with feet still in the car; in one report he pointed to the rooftop before dying. Witnesses said that he had been shot in the head and chest, but the medical examiner, Dr. John Judson, found only a chest wound (AP, 26 August 1967). Here is a photo of the crime scene that appeared in theWashington Post:

Here are the bullet-holes in the windshield of Rockwell's car:

Here is how theWashington Postmapped
the area where the killing occurred, and the sequence of events. You
can see that if Patsalos had been hanging around the entrance to Rockwell's
property, he would have been practically in the shopping center already.
It may even have been possible to use the rooftop as a point of
surveillance over Rockwell's property; certainly it was possible to keep
track of comings and goings from there, at least.

LOCALE
-- George Lincoln Rockwell drove from American Nazi Party headquarters
(A) across Wilson Boulevard to shopping center (B). The sniper on the
rooftop (C) in inset) fired two shots as Rockwell backed his car from
parking lot (D). Car coasted to stop (E). (Washington Postillustration and caption.)

When the shots were fired217-year-old laundry attendant Robert Hancock looked up and saw the gunman on the 15-foot roof of the beauty salon (UPI, 25 August 1967). A barber named James Cummings saw a man later identified as John Patler, a.k.a. John Christ Patsalos, an expelled former member of Rockwell's organization, leap from the south end of the shopping center and gave chase but lost him.

Somewhere in the range of 30 to 45 minutes after the killing Patsalos was spotted by police standing at a corner bus stop at the edge of a park about one-half mile from the shooting. He tried to run away but was caught and placed under arrest by Inspector Raymond S. Cole (UPI, 25 August 1967).

Patsalos' Character

John Christ Patsalos was born in Bronx, New York. His family history is quite troubling. His father, an immigrant, served a term at Sing Sing for murdering John Patsalos' mother in 1943 when he was five years old. (AP, 26 August 1967) He fought for custody of John and his brother on being released. (AP 26 August 1967) In 1996 the brother, Christ George Patsalos, was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida for having murdered his girlfriend in 1982. This was literally a family of murderers.John Patsalos had a criminal history prior to adopting the name Patler and becoming a "Nazi." He spent time in a New York youth-detention house where Patsalos boasted that another assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had once been held. One report says that he murdered a childhood friend.Patsalos enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1958. In July 1960 he was given an honorable discharge on grounds of "unsuitability." One report says that the discharge was due to his being arrested at an American Nazi Party event (AP 26 August 1967). He joined Rockwell's organizationin 1960and around that time he started calling himself by the German-sounding surname Patler.

In 1961 Patsalos, now "Patler," was put in charge of the American Nazi Party's "Hate Bus," which toured the South with a dozen stormtroopers. Patsalos made speeches in various Southern cities where there was notable conflict over "Civil Rights." (AP 22 May 1961)Patsalos edited and illustrated the NSWPP's publication for members,The Stormtrooper,and drew cartoons found in Rockwell's bookWhite Power.

In 1962 Patsalos left the American Nazi Party and in collaboration with crypto-Jew Dan Burros3formed the American National Party. This ANP, based in Manhattan, claimed ten members and was able to muster six for public demonstrations, all clad in white shirts and black trousers. They managed to call some attention to themselves by extreme and aggressive posturing,e.g.calling for war against Russia, which provoked a public complaint from a Russian diplomat. In their magazineKill!Patsalos accused Rockwell of being a liberal (UPI, 25 August 1967). Patsalos rejoined Rockwell's organization in 1964. Rockwell commented on the episode as follows:

"A political guerrilla band is what we are. And under such conditions, the struggle for power is almost cannibalistic. What happened is Patler rebelled against the leadership-- he thought he could do it better. He went up to New York and tried and he fell on his face. He's ashamed of what he did. He's apologized for it publicly. And he's worked his head off. He's a fine member right now."

Having tried and failed to build his own organization, Patsalos sought and received readmission into Rockwell's organization, but the incompatibility that had led to his resignation was still there.

Patsalos, in his and Dan Burros' short-lived "American National Party," had done away with all things "nazi." Patsalos objected to this aspect of Rockwell's organization even after rejoining, and had conflicts with other members because of it. As a swarthy Greek, Patsalos seems to have objected particularly to the Nordic ideal associated with National-Socialism. He referred to members lighter than himself as "blue-eyed devils" (NY Times, 26 August 1967).Matt Koehl told reporters that Patsalos had exhibited "Bolshevik leanings," and, "Communist thought kept creeping up in his work." (UPI, 25 August 1967)According to testimony given during his appeal before the Virginia Supreme Court in 1970, Patsalos said to another NSWPP member, "Rockwell is an evil genius and must be stopped." (UPI, 1 December 1970)

Police Inspector Walter E. Bell is cited for the claim that Patsalos had left the NSWPP in January 1967 (AP, 26 August 1967). AUPIstory of 1 December 1970 specifies that Patsalos had been fired as editor of the party's newspaper on 30 March 1967 and expelled from the organization on 4 April.

Early in the summer of 1967, there was an attempt to kill Rockwell in the driveway of his house. Dr. William Pierce, who worked for Rockwell at the time, quotes Rockwell as saying that the gunman looked like Patsalos to him:

"About
June of the next year, 1967, Rockwell drove out of the headquarters to
run an errand. As usual he was accompanied by somebody when he went
out. That wasn't always the case, though--he could be very
careless about his personal safety. There was a long drive, maybe
one hundred yards, from the house down to the street, with forest on
both sides. When Rockwell got back from his errands, there was some
brush piled in the driveway. Rockwell was driving and had to stop,
and the other guy got out of the car to clear the brush off the driveway
so they could continue. It turned out that Patler had put the brush
there and was hiding in bushes alongside the driveway. While the
other guy was out of the car clearing the brush, Patler took a shot at
Rockwell sitting in the car. It missed and ricocheted off the car just
above the door where Rockwell was sitting. Rockwell, who was
unarmed, jumped out of the car and began running toward where Patler
was. Patler panicked and took off running through the woods with
Rockwell at his heels. Patler was armed, Rockwell wasn't, and
Rockwell was chasing him. Patler was about twenty years younger and a
faster runner and got away. Later I asked Rockwell who did it, and
he said, 'I couldn't get a clear look at the guy, all I could see was
his back--but I would swear it was John Patler.'" [W. L. Pierce quoted by R. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds].

Rockwell's father, former vaudeville and radio5performer George "Doc" Rockwell, age 78 at the time, said after learning of his son's fate: "I'm not surprised at all." (AP 26 August 1967) And, "He was more afraid of his own men than people were of him."

Patsalos on Trial

At the time of the arrest, Patsalos was drenched in sweat, had roofing tar on the bottom of one shoe, and both shoes were wet, as were his pants up to six inches above the knee. A teenage girl had witnessed Patsalos hurrying away from the shopping center. (The Free Lance-Herald, 3o September 1967)

The day after the murder a C-96 Mauser "Broomhandle" was found "just below" a wooden foot-bridge under six to eight inches of water in a creek that runs through Bon Air Park, midway between the shopping center and where Patsalos was apprehended. (AP, 27 August 1967) Apparently it had rocks placed over it, since Four Mile Run is full of rocks and the prosecutor contended that Patsalos had knelt in the water while concealing the weapon.The Arlington Police submitted it to the FBI's crime lab for testing. (AP, 27 August 1967) Ballistics showed that this was the murder weapon. Patsalos had borrowed the unusual firearm from a party member in 1964 and never returned it. Patsalos had been seen target-practicing on his father-in-law's farm, and slugs taken from a tree there confirmed that the gun found in the creek was the one that had been in Patsalos' possession.Based on this evidence Arlington County judge L. Jackson Embrey sent the case to a grand jury.Patsalos loudly protested his innocence and never confessed anything. A conspiracy theory was propagated that Patsalos had been the victim of a frame-up by the ADL. Rockwell's former deputy Karl Allen was a proponent of this theory.4Karl Allen also raised money for Patsalos' defense.When the trial began on 27 November 1967, Patsalos was very well defended, with three attorneys. His attorneys' strategy all along was to draw attention to flaws in the prosecution's case or to try to create flaws by challenging the admissibility of crucial pieces of evidence, specificallythe Mauser Broomhandle slugs found on his father-in-law's farm, the admissibility of which was challenged on the first day of the original trial (Free Lance-Star, 28 November 1967) and in the final appeal before the Virginia Supreme Court in 1970.One of the defense attorneys, Thomas J. Harrigan, tried but failed to have the case dismissed, alleging that the prosecutor, William J. Hassan, had piled inference upon inference and had failed to connect Patsalos with the crime. (AP 12 December 1967)

Patsalos was caught lying. He claimed that he had left home just before noon and could not have been at the shopping center when Rockwell was killed. Patsalos' father-in-law Sam Ervin and wife Alice contradicted him, testifying that he had left the house at 11:10AM. (AP, 15 December 1967)The trial ended with a guilty verdict on 15 December 1967.

Did the government go easy on Rockwell's assassin?

Some conspiracy-theorists have suggested that the Commonwealth of Virginia showed undue leniency to Rockwell's assassin. While Patsalos did get a light sentence, it is easily shown that this was not the fault of the government.

Patsalos was convicted in December 1967 of first-degree murder. The prosecutor had urged the death penalty.

The all-White jury of ten men and two women (Free Lance-Star, 28 November 1967), however, recommended a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, which was indeed the minimum sentence for First-Degree Murder in Virginia.

Under Virginia Law, the judge could not give a sentence greater than what the jury had recommended (AP, 19 December 1967). Judge Charles Russell postponed sentencing until 29 January 1968, at which time he pronounced the only sentence that he could.

Since there is an element of randomness in the selection of juries, Patsalos' lenient sentencing cannot be attributed to some conspiracy and favoritism by government officials. The prosecutor had asked for death, and the judge gave the most severe penalty that he could give under the circumstances. Evidently Patsalos had a very good defense team who found a way to make the jury take pity on the killer.

On 31 November 1970 Patsalos' conviction and sentence wereupheldby the Supreme Court of Virginia.

It is sometimes claimed that Patsalos was released from prison after only three years. This is inaccurate.

As of 1975 Patsalos was still in prison, but he was allowed to participate in a "study release program" that enabled him to take art classes at Radford College. In August 1975, Patsalos was approved for parole.

John Patler, ambush killer of American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell, Friday became the first major political slayer of the 1960s -- America's "Decade of Assassination" -- to be freed. [...] He had served eight years of a 20-year sentence....[...]"He was a model inmate who never caused any problems... that's why he was paroled...." said Alan Brittle, of the state parole office. (UPI, 23 August 1975)

What confuses people is not really that Patsalos was treated leniently, but that they are sure that anybody who assassinated a prominent enemy of the White race would be treated with utmost harshness, which casts Patsalos' treatment into stark relief.

To determine whether Patsalos was treated leniently by the Commonwealth of Virginia after his conviction, one would have to compare to other similar cases in the same state. In 1993 it was reported that the average prison inmate in Virginia serves less than a third of his sentence. (Virginian-Pilot, 2 October 1993) At that rate, Patsalos was not given any special leniency except initially by the jury that had recommended only a 20-year sentence. That was where Patsalos got lucky.

Today, John Patsalos lives in New York City.

Of
course, if Patsalos had killed some Negro leader, the federal
government would have added federal charges and federal penalties, so
that Patsalos would never have gotten out of prison. It is not
Virginia's fault that White lives were worth less than Black lives to
the federal government.

The Succession

UPI reports that Matt Koehl announced that he had taken command of the NSWPP a few hours after the murder:

The 32-year-old Milwaukee native assumed command on his own, but nobody questioned his right.

What was Koehl's position in the NSWPP that enabled him to succeed Rockwell without being challenged?In the 1966Playboyinterview, Koehl was identified by Rockwell as his "research chief," who had determined that some photos of alleged Holocaust victims really showed victims of the bombing of Dresden.More to the point, Koehl was publicly known as the deputy commander. As part of his conspiracy theory, Harold Covington claims that there was no reference to Matt Koehl as the Deputy-Commander of the NSWPP prior to Rockwell's death. This is not true. On 14 April 1967, just a few months before Rockwell's death, theFree Lance-Starof Fredericksburg, Virginia reported:

The Spotsylvania County American Nazi Party chapter is making plans to celebrate the birthday of Adolph Hitler next Thursday, April 20. [...] Principal speaker will be Maj.Matt Koehl, deputy commander of the American Nazi Partyand second in command to George Lincoln Rockwell.

In fact Koehl was not able to carry on very well what Rockwell had started. Although loyal and trusted by Rockwell, he was not the right type of man for the position. The four-phase plan that Rockwell had outlined in This Time the World was abandoned entirely. The uniformed public demonstrations that had been intended as only a temporary gimmick to gain publicity, under Koehl became once again the organization's main activity.

Why? Perhaps because the men who had been attracted to the organization for its hellraising aspect demanded it and were not interested in serious politics. Perhaps because other men, capable of subtler forms of activism, had not appeared in sufficient numbers. But the main reason seems to be the personal preference of Matt Koehl.

This is not to say that the NSWPP under Matt Koehl did no good whatsoever, but it did not follow the path into serious politics that Rockwell had intended. Uniformed "Nazi" groups in the USA generally follow the pattern set by Matt Koehl in the late 1960s and '70s, rather than the course laid out by Rockwell.

It should be admitted that Rockwell's plan was too ambitious to work, at least in terms of its stated goal of electing George Lincoln Rockwell as President of the United States in 1972. But, some transition in a more serious direction might have been feasible.In the 1980s Koehl receded even farther from politics, sinking into mysticism and renaming Rockwell's organization as the New Order. (Since Koehl's death in 2014 New Order seems to have become more active in producing and distributing printed matter.)The best legacy of Rockwell's effort is probably the pro-White activist career of Dr. William Pierce, who contacted Rockwell and joined the cause after seeing reportage of Rockwell attempting to give a speech before of a hostile crowd. Rockwell offered an example of bold truthtelling and an attempt to educate the public against the anti-White agenda, in stark contrast to the apologetic and halfhearted, and ultimately worthless resistance offered by so-called responsible conservatives. That educational component of Rockwell's effort became Dr. Pierce's life's work.

____________________________________

Notes

1. The house at 3150 Wilson Boulevard has since been razed and the property incorporated into Upton Hill Regional Park. The street address that was once Rockwell's is now farther northwest.

2. There is a great discrepancy in the reporting about what time Rockwell was shot. Robert Hancock, the 17-year-old laundry attendant says 12:20. Other reports say slightly before noon (AP, 26 August 1967). As close as the laundromat was to Rockwell's home, if Rockwell left at about 11:50 as Koehl later testified (AP 12 December 1967), the time of the killing seems unlikely to have been significantly later than noon unless Rockwell spent 20 minutes or so in the laundromat before leaving.3. Dan Burros was later exposed as a Jew and allegedly shot himself in the apartment of Roy Frankhouser on 31 October 1965 after reading an article about himself in theNew York Times. (Reading Eagle, 10 October 1967)

4. Too little interest is paid to the fact that Karl Allen shared some interests with Patsalos. Allen was another disgruntled former member of the NSWPP who had quit and become a critic of Rockwell and tried to start his own group. Seemy articleon the question of Karl Allen's perspective.5. Doc Rockwell had been an occasional performer on Fred Allen's radio show. (AP, 26 August 1967)

17 August 2017

On 17 August 2017 at 7PM EST there is supposed to be on Youtube a "debate" about national-socialism between two Internet entities, Vox Day and Greg Johnson, neither of whom, it seems to me, can claim to be very knowledgeable about national-socialism.

One of the first things that anyone who would claim to be knowledgeable about national-socialism should know, is that there has been enormous misrepresentation and even forgery that has to be circumvented in order to arrive at a true picture of national-socialism. Neither Greg Johnson nor Vox Day seems to know this, as I shall explain.

Know-It-All Greg Johnson

A few years ago there was an essay by Johnson published on Hitler's birthday on The Occidental Observer, wherein Johnson used just one alleged quote from Adolf Hitler. It happened to be from the fraudulent Hitler-Bormann Documents.

I spotted this right away and pointed out the mistake in the comments section.

The fake quote was removed from the essay for a short time, but then reinserted. Johnson then tried to argue for the quote's authenticity by citing the authority of Dr. William Pierce. Why Johnson would cite Dr. Pierce on such a matter is a mystery to me, but that's what he did. It was a bad move, because unlike Johnson, I did not just meet Dr. Pierce once, but actually knew him and worked for him at various times over the course of several years before Johnson met him, and knew with certainty that Dr. Pierce did not regard the Hitler-Bormann Documents as authentic. National Vanguard Books did not sell that book, specifically because it was known to be a fraud. Johnson was lying.Johnson is also no friend of national-socialism. In an essay for TOO wherein he was pushing his brandname, "North American New Right," he defined his "new right" as distinct and utterly separate from the stinky poopoo of Fascism and National-Socialism, and even from William Pierce, all of which were tainted by association with a Holocaust that Greg Johnson dares not question and advises others not to question, because questioning the Holocaust is just heartless and mean, Johnson says (G. Johnson, "Dealing with the Holocaust," TOO, 20 July 2012).

And now Greg Johnson is going to speak on national-socialism's behalf? If this were a legal matter I would ask for a different attorney, because this one seems none too fond of his client.

Know-It-All Vox Day

I am almost completely unfamiliar with Vox Day although I have heard the name a few times. From the little that I have seen, he seems to be a know-it-all more or less of the libertarian variety. He is on his moral high horse against "socialism," and is determined that national-socialism should be excluded from the Alt Right because, as socialism, it is leftist and therefore not rightist.As a national-socialist, I have stated in the past that I do not call myself Alt Right and do not care about participating in the fad of being called Alt Right. National-Socialism is something fairly definite, whereas the Alt Right is something nebulous.

Let us bear in mind that the Alt Right brand more or less belongs to Richard Spencer, who once famously declared, in response to libertarian hectoring: "Big government forever!" Certainly any pro-White creed that embraces "Big government forever!" is big enough for national-socialism.In that light, the real argument would seem to be about whether Richard Spencer's Alt Right is correctly named. Instead, these two guys, Vox Day and Greg Johnson, will argue about whether national-socialism can be part of the Alt Right.

Vox Day's argument is that, because what is now -- since World War II -- called the right is always for less government and against socialism, it is impossible to be rightist and at the same time in any way socialist.I spent a good part of a recent What Would Hitler Do? segment explaining that before the Second World War conservatism and socialism were not considered antithetical. There was in Britain, since the 1840s, the concept of Tory Socialism, which is another way of saying conservative socialism. It was Bismarck, with the backing of the Conservatives, who established the welfare state in Germany. There is a long history of conservative, or one might say right-wing, socialism.

This was possible because the older conservatism was not about free markets and individual liberty. Conservatism was about preserving traditions and morality and, eventually, about preserving the race.It is only when liberalism calls itself conservatism, as has happened since the Second World War, that conservative socialism no longer seems possible.

Vox Day tries to demonstrate that national-socialism is no different than any other socialism, and presents on his blog seven alleged quotes that are supposed to prove this. Vox Day says that they are "direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself."

In fact, only two of the seven statements are direct quotes from Hitler.The first and third quotes are from the fraudster Hermann Rauschning, p. 131 and p. 186 of his book The Voice of Destruction.The fifth quote is from Ernst Roehm, from the period (1934) when Roehm was complaining that the National-Socialist Revolution had turned out to be less socialist than he had hoped. (Wikiquotes mistakenly attributes the statement to Hitler, alleging Churchill's The Gathering Storm, p. 87, as the source. If you carefully read what Churchill wrote, you can see that he in fact attributes the statement to Roehm.)The second and fourth quotes are from the memoir of Otto Wagener, supposedly written in 1946 based on recollections of conversations from 13+ years earlier. Postwar memoirs of the vanquished are in general dubious, but a memoir written after so many years had passed is definitely not trustworthy. Furthermore, this memoir, for whatever reason, was not published until 1978 -- seven years after Wagener's death -- which raises a question of authenticity.I personally do not believe that Wagener's memoir, or the alleged memoir attributed to Wagener, is accurate. The statement that has Hitler seeming to support "international socialism" as a final consequence of the spread of national-socialism is not consistent with other statements. Hitler is recorded in the Table Talk as having said that national-socialism was not for export, because if other nations adopted national-socialism they would become stronger in competition against Germany.

I am firmly opposed to any attempt to export National-Socialism. If other countries are determined to preserve their democratic systems and thus rush to their ruin, so much the better for us. [Table Talk, entry for 20 May 1942]

It should be plain that Hitler's attitude toward foreign relations as a great competition for survival did not favor such a concept as "international socialism," and that the words attributed to Hitler in the alleged Wagener memoir do not sound like Hitler.And even if Wagener did write it, a memoir written so many years later cannot be considered reliably as "direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself."Only the sixth and seventh sentences in Vox Day's list are "direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself." The sixth is from a speech that Hitler gave for the beginning of the Winter Aid Program (5 October 1937), and the seventh is from Hitler's address to the German people upon commencement of Operation Barbarossa (22 June 1941). In that speech, when Hitler refers to the "new socialist order in Germany," it is by contrast with the Soviet system, which Hitler characterizes as "chaos, misery, and starvation." The speech emphasized that the Soviet and National-Socialist systems were different, not that they were the same, as Vox Day would have it.The conclusion is, Vox Day doesn't know what the hell he's on about.Neither of these guys, neither Greg Johnson nor Vox Day, is well equipped to discuss national-socialism and its relationship to the Alt Right.That is a moot point anyway.

The real question is whether libertarianism (what used to be called liberalism) can save the White race. I maintain that it obviously cannot and will not, because unlike national-socialism it was never designed for that.

10 August 2017

Dinesh D'souza in 2014. The frauds that he commits with his books are unfortunately legal.

The Big Lie of Dinesh D'Souza

I listened to some of Dinesh D'Souza's recent speeches and interviews about his new book, called The Big Lie, which was published a few days ago (on 31 July 2017). I do not have the book, but I assume that what he has been saying in his recent appearances resembles what he has written. Last year in Hillary's America, D'Souza used significant omissions to make that argument seem tenable, like the fact that the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Republican Calvin Coolidge for president in 1924, and the fact that the Jewish takeover of the Democratic Party caused Southern segregationists in huge numbers to switch to the Republican Party in the 1960s and '70s, corresponding to what was called Nixon's Southern strategy.
D'Souza's relationship with the truth does not seem to have improved in the past year.

Broadly
speaking D'Souza's new work seems to be a repeat performance of Hillary's America, the
message of which boils down to “Democrats are the Real Racists,” except
that now it's “Democrats are the Real Nazis.”
D'Souza refers to violence of Antifa and “the irony of using fascist tactics to fight fascism.”

There is nothing ironic here, unless one begins by accepting the leftist and Jewish premise that Nazis and Fascists invented political violence. In fact the paramilitary Brownshirts organization was created to protect National-Socialist meetings against attacks by leftists.
In general, like the rest of the National Review crowd, D'Souza proceeds from assumptions that are Jew-approved.
An important point of dishonesty in D'Souza's presentation is his reference to images from concentration camps supposedly proving the Holocaust. Those images are really the foundation of the general demonization of Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism, with Fascism being demonized mainly by association with that, but in fact, those images do not prove anything. The fact that D'Souza leans on this shows again that he is pandering to popular misconceptions and basically lacks seriousness.
D'Souza summarizes Hitler's description of the Big Lie without bothering to mention that Hitler accused the Jews of using the Big Lie. This has to be deliberate dishonesty and a deliberate omission on D'Souza's part.*As examples of the leftist “Big Lie” D'Souza points to the accusation that Trump is a fascist, and the accusation that Trump is a racist.
In fact, Trump's movement does resemble a less than fully developed fascism, insofar as its message is nationalist and populist. It is also certain that Trump gets a lot of support from White people based on the perception that he represents the interests of White people. That is what those on the left call racist. So what? I don't see Trump doing backflips to avoid such labels.
In general, D'Souza's presentation is about fear of labels, and about applying those feared labels to others instead of bringing reason to bear. For an educated person, this is on its face not a very convincing kind of argument. Nonetheless I shall dismantle some of D'Souza's major claims.

Eugenic Sterilization

Since Jews have created in the mind of the public a spurious link between eugenic sterilization and the Holocaust, D'Souza would like to identify the movement for eugenic sterilization in the United States with “progressives.” By the same token, however, D'Souza definitely does not want to identify it with Republicans.

Republican Gov. of Indiana J. Frank Hanly

Perhaps D'Souza never bothered to find out that the first American states to enact forced eugenic sterilization laws were all Republican states.
James Franklin Hanly, the governor of Indiana who signed the first eugenic sterilization bill into law in 1907, was a Republican.
In 1909 Washington, California, and Connecticut all had eugenic sterilization bills signed into law by Republican governors. In 1911 eugenic sterilization was signed into law by Iowa's Republican governor Beryl F. Carroll. The first five states to adopt eugenic sterilization had it signed into law by Republican governors.
The Southern and Democratic states were slower to adopt the practice, possibly because of the influence of Christianity in those states.
Dinesh D'Souza calls Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race, a progressive, and maybe he was, but Madison Grant was also a Republican, and a friend of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who called himself a progressive.
Unlike Roosevelt, however, Madison Grant was unequivocally a racist. Can we really say that a man who advocates racism is on the left? From one perspective, maintaining a race is the most profound form of conservatism. From the perspective of the followers of Ayn Rand, however, racism is “collectivism” and therefore on the left. That is the kind of pigeonholing that Dinesh D'Souza promotes.

What is Conservative?

Westbrook Pegler

It goes back to a semantic question about what is right, what is left, and what is conservative. These terms do not mean the same today as they meant 100 years ago.

During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, the meaning of the word liberal changed drastically. Westbrook Pegler, a dogged critic of the New Deal, wrote this in his column of 21 September 1953:

The truth is that our entire people have been brainwashed by the Roosevelt-Truman administrations for the last 20 years. The result is that today most of us don't even know what our constitutional rights really are. We are afraid to say that Hitler was right about communism and Soviet Russia. Words which formerly had honest meanings now mean exactly the reverse to most of us. Those few who stubbornly insist on using the word “liberal” in its old, genuine meaning, are almost totally misunderstood. We even know we will be misunderstood when we use it.
[…]
I am one of the most liberal liberals in the country. But those who use the name “liberal” as their designation of a line of thought put me down as a reactionary. Well, I am. I hit back when I am hit. That is my reaction to abusive action. Suppose then that we say I am a reactionary liberal. These two political cliches are supposed to be mutually contradictory, although they really are not as any person must admit who knows the meanings of plain American words. [Westbrook Pegler, Reading Eagle, 21 September 1953]

Pegler tells us that before FDR, a liberal was somebody who wanted free markets and less interference from government. That political orientation today is called conservative.
So, if what now passes for conservative used to be liberal, what was conservative? I will give you a clue. Being conservative 100 years ago was not about less government. Conservatives 100 years ago used to recognize that individual freedom had a downside to it.

From Tory Socialism to National-Socialism

In the UK, in fact, there was a concept known as Tory Socialism. You could be a Tory, which is to say a member of the Conservative Party, and also a socialist.
Niles Carpenter wrote in 1922 that Tory Socialism was a form of “political mediaevalist reaction” that was also known in the 19th century as the Young England movement, and its most prominent advocate was Benjamin Disraeli.

… Young England started among a group of Oxford students. Disraeli became the leader, and although the group went to pieces in 1845, the more vital of its principles have carried on to the present day. Disraeli and his followers sought “to reconcile the working classes to the Throne, the Church, and the Aristocracy”; that is, to restore feudalism at its best. This theory was supported by a practical policy, at once progressive and reactionary. [Niles Carpenter, Guild Socialism, 1922: p. 41]

Carpenter says that the Tory Socialists claimed to be the real “friends of the people” unlike the liberal free-traders. The general idea was an alliance of the traditional institutions of Britain with the working class, against the bourgeoisie, which had dominated politics since 1832.
At the turn of the 20th century, a prominent advocate of Tory Socialism was the writer G. S. Street, who authored an essay by that name.
During the 20th century, the British Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin (1935-1937) (who was nominally opposed to socialism but called moderate in policy) and Harold MacMillan (1957-1963) have been characterized by others as practitioners of Tory Socialism.
In Germany, the modern welfare state was invented in the 1880s, not by a red socialist Jew like Ferdinand Lasalle but by a military man, Count Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, who was not a member of any party but had been relying on the support of the Conservative Party since 1873. The introduction of the welfare state in Germany brought the working class to the conservative, forming an effective coalition against the commercial class (as well as the far left) just as Tory Socialism had intended in England.
A German Communist member of the Reichstag named Karl Korsch, who left Germany in 1933 and ended up in the United States, teaching at Tulane University, referred to Bismarck's policies as “a kind of Tory Socialism.”
I have pointed out, in an earlier installment of What Would Hitler Do?, that Adolf Hitler in some ways walked in Bismarck's footsteps, doing the same kind of thing as Bismarck but more of it.
The fact that such a thing as Tory Socialism could exist, and the fact that Hitler's movement can be categorized in this way, is important, because Dinesh D'Souza takes for granted that socialism and conservatism are never the same thing. D'Souza follows the customs of National Review, using only political concepts from the postwar period, after the period of brainwashing under Roosevelt and Truman that Westbrook Pegler described in 1953.

National-Socialism and the Crisis of Marxism

In his speech at Trinity University earlier this year, Dinesh D'Souza claims that Italian fascism grew out of the “Crisis of Marxism” that happened after the First World War. Most of us who have heard of this Crisis of Marxism know it as the event that spawned Cultural Marxism, a mutant branch of Marxism that no longer made its appeal to the workers but to discontented minorities of every possible kind, and also made an issue of sexual repression.
D'Souza does not even mention the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism as a product of this Crisis of Marxism. Instead, he says:

“And out of that Crisis of Marxism came two new variations of Marxism.... The first was Leninist Bolshevism, and the other was Italian Fascism. This is the undisputed truth of history.” [D'Souza, Speech at Trinity University, 2017]

Of course D'Souza is wrong when he says that it is an undisputed truth of history. He immediately contradicts himself on that point when he goes on to say that there was “a very important progressive coverup project” after the Second World War, “to camouflage the close associations of the political left with Fascism and Nazism, and to move Fascism and Nazism from the left, where they were always understood to be, into the right-wing column.”
Whether National-Socialism and Fascism are to be called left or right is a question of definition. Since D'Souza is working with National Review's definitions, and cannot conceive how an expansion of government could be used for essentially conservative ends, of course he tags National-Socialism and Fascism as leftist.
The fomentors of proletarian class-struggle, however, always understood Fascism and National-Socialism, with their goal of class-reconciliation, as something fundamentally different from what they were trying to do.
A Communist member of the Reichstag named Karl Korsch wrote about the products of the Crisis of Marxism in 1931, and what he says is probably more accurate than what D'Souza says. Mind you, D'Souza has said that it was undisputed, or at least undisputed until after the Second World War, that Fascism was one of the two products of the Crisis of Marxism.
First, Korsch wrote in 1931 that there were two movements within Marxism that had continued since before the First World War. These were “the reformist state socialism of the social democratic parties” and “communist anti-imperialism.”
Korsch also named three new movements, resulting from the Crisis of Marxism, that rejected Marx's eschatology. These three innovative movements, Korsch identified as: “unionist reformism, revolutionary syndicalism, and Leninist Bolshevism.”
In Karl Korsch's account of the products of the Crisis of Marxism, from 1931, Fascism and National-Socialism do not appear.
In 1940, Korsch went on to explain that Fascism and National-Socialism were, from his Communist perspective, counterrevolutionary. He favored the summation of Italian Marxist Ignazio Silone who said:

"Fascism is a counterrevolution against a revolution that never took place"

In other words, Fascism consists of measures taken to secure the loyalty of the workers (including removal of the incorrigible troublemakers from society) so that a proletarian revolution cannot happen. That might not be a right-wing thing to do, but in the big picture it is certainly conservative, in the most important conceivable way.

Verdict

The kind of argument that D'Souza presents seems to be directed primarily to stupid and cowardly people who live in fear of being tarred with some taboo label. Republican status-seekers who live in fear of having anyone know their true racial attitudes might be excited over a production like Hillary's America or The Big Lie that allows them to deflect the accusation that they most fear at somebody else.
In other words, Dinesh D'Souza is not making a contribution to rational public discourse, at all.
Beyond that, he is suggesting to people who need to get over the stigma of being called racist or Nazi that instead they should cherish that stigma as they apply it to somebody else. Thus they become ever more deeply entrenched in their own cowardice and dishonesty.
D'Souza is himself a very dishonest man. In 2014 he was sentenced to five years for fraud (after being reported by the husband of a woman with whom he, also married at the time, was having an affair). As a writer, Dinesh D'Souza is still committing fraud.
D'Souza comes to us from a highly corrupt society that has also given us storekeepers who systematically overcharges customers by small increments, anticipating that few will complain. These people are opportunists and crooks.
Allowing an Indian to come to the United States and to tell our people what to think about political matters is almost as unwise, I would suggest, as allowing a Somali to become a policeman._____________________* In his public speeches on the subject, D'Souza lets his audiences believe that Hitler advocated the big lie in Mein Kampf. D'Souza knows better. In his
book, as it turns out, while admitting that Hitler does not advocate the big lie and even warns his readers against it,
D'Souza invokes psychological jargon as a way to rationalize accusing
Hitler anyway. D'Souza invokes the old psychoanalytical term transference, but he cannot even get that right: what he means is projection. D'Souza
must have recognized that this psychobabble argument was too transparently gratuitous to seem convincing if
spoken aloud, and therefore, in his speeches, has opted to let his audiences believe that Hitler advocated the big lie.